CCI ruled that the policy restricted consumer choice and harmed parallel importers, resulting in an “appreciable adverse effect” on competition
| Photo Credit:
REUTERS/Dado Ruvic
The Competition Commission of India has imposed a penalty of ₹27.38 crore on Intel Corporation for abusing its dominant position in the desktop processor market, in a ruling that underscores New Delhi’s growing willingness to challenge territorial business practices by multinational technology groups.
CCI said Intel’s “India Specific Warranty Policy” discriminated against products purchased outside the country, limiting warranty coverage for boxed desktop microprocessors to units bought from authorised Indian distributors. Processors sourced from Intel’s overseas distributors, including through parallel import channels, were denied warranty service in India and redirected to the country of purchase.
The regulator found Intel dominant in the relevant market for boxed microprocessors for desktops in India and ruled that the policy restricted consumer choice and harmed parallel importers, resulting in an “appreciable adverse effect” on competition.
“The Commission found India Specific Warranty Policy discriminatory in comparison with Intel’s warranty policies in China, Australia and rest of the world. The Commission also found the aforesaid policy to have limited the choice of consumers and parallel importers and thereby, causing an appreciable adverse effect on Indian consumers,” read a statement issued by CCI.
Policy retracted in 2024
The policy, introduced in April 2016, remained in force for eight years before being withdrawn in April 2024. The CCI imposed a penalty equivalent to 8 per cent of Intel’s average relevant turnover, though it reduced the final amount after considering mitigating factors, including the company’s decision to discontinue the policy.
While the fine is financially immaterial for the US chipmaker, the order carries wider implications for global manufacturers operating in India. The ruling strengthens the legal standing of parallel imports, the practice of importing genuine products from lower-priced markets, and signals that geographic segmentation through after-sales restrictions may draw regulatory scrutiny.
The decision aligns India more closely with antitrust enforcement trends in the EU and other jurisdictions, where authorities have challenged companies for partitioning markets or limiting cross-border trade within integrated markets.
Setting a precedent
The case was initiated in 2019 following a complaint by Matrix Info Systems, an Indian firm that alleged the warranty policy effectively insulated authorised domestic distributors from price competition.
The decision comes amid heightened oversight of large technology and digital companies in India, as regulators expand enforcement beyond traditional cartel cases into unilateral conduct by dominant firms. For multinational companies, the ruling serves as a reminder that localised commercial policies, even in after-sales service, can fall within the scope of abuse-of-dominance provisions.
As India seeks to position itself as a key node in global electronics manufacturing and supply chains, the message from regulators is clear: market access cannot be conditioned on territorial barriers that undermine competition or consumer welfare.
Published on February 12, 2026
